News

From the second generation of non-food crops and agricultural waste as raw materials to manufacture materials/chemicals, to the third generation of bio-manufacturing technologies that directly use carbon dioxide as raw materials, technology has subverted people’s cognition again and again. Innovative technologies such as carbon dioxide synthesis of starch, glucose, polylactic acid, and succinic acid emerge in an endless stream.

In terms of corporate applications, carbon dioxide is used to make laundry products, and polycarbonate is used to make sunglasses. Carbon dioxide-based materials are favored by major brands. Carbon reduction and environmental protection have become the biggest “gimmicks” of carbon dioxide-based products. However, as far as industrial development is concerned, there are very few cases in which the efficient utilization of carbon dioxide is actually realized.

Previously, Professor Liu Ke from Southern University of Science and Technology gave a speech, pointing out that the contribution of carbon dioxide manufacturing chemicals to carbon reduction is not large, and the focus is still on the replacement of petroleum energy. Reducing production costs is the key to the industrialization of carbon dioxide-based materials.
Source: Contents of the fourth phase of the “Science and Technology Innovation Academician Lecture Hall” of Shenzhen Institute of Innovation and Development

At present, the public has certain limitations on the challenges and cognition of carbon neutrality. They believe that a single technical route or technological breakthrough can solve the carbon neutrality problem. Therefore, there are often several misunderstandings.
The first myth is that both wind and solar power are cheaper than thermal power, so solar and wind power can completely replace thermal power to achieve carbon neutrality.
This sentence is only 1/5 to 1/6 true. Because there are 8,760 hours in a year, and the number of hours of solar power generation in China varies from place to place, ranging from 1,300 hours to 2,000 hours, there are few areas with more than 2,000 hours, and the average is around 1,700 hours; that is to say, solar energy About 1/5-1/6 of the time period is cheaper than thermal power; and in the other 4/5-5/6 time period, if you want to store electricity, the cost will be much higher than thermal power. The annual power generation time of wind energy is slightly longer than that of solar energy, which is about 2,000 hours, but electricity needs to be supplied 24 hours a day. It cannot be said that a power plant only supplies one or two thousand hours a year, because we cannot use electricity when there is sun and wind. Power outages when there is no sun or wind. Solar and wind energy is cheap, but the biggest problem is unstable power supply.
It is undeniable that China’s wind energy and solar energy have been developed for nearly 40 years and have achieved great achievements. We pay lofty tribute to the scientists who have contributed to this field. But to this day, wind and solar are still a drop in the bucket compared to coal power. Taking 2019 as an example, the total power generation of wind and solar energy in the country is equivalent to 192 million tons of standard coal power generation, while China’s annual coal consumption for power generation is about 2.2 billion tons of coal, equivalent to 1.8-1.9 billion tons of standard coal. That said, wind and solar can only account for about 10 percent of coal power.
Moreover, the concept of grid storage by batteries is very dangerous. It is estimated that the world’s 5-year battery production capacity can only meet the power of Tokyo’s power outage for 3 days. It is inconceivable to say that we have 4/5 of the time or 5/6 of the time to rely on the battery to store power. Besides, the world doesn’t have so much cobalt and lithium to allow us to make so many batteries. In this case, the problem of abandoning light and abandoning wind is very serious, because the grid can only accommodate 15% of the unstable power supply. The electricity generated by wind energy and solar energy cannot be fully absorbed by the grid. If we continue to increase wind energy and solar energy, and the problem of large-scale energy storage cannot be solved, we can only waste more.
There are two reasons for abandoning light and wind in China. One is the technical factor, that is, because solar energy and wind energy cannot be predicted, the grid can accommodate less than 15%, and more than 15% cannot accommodate it. This is a big technical problem. , it is not easy to solve until now; the second is the mechanism factor, the existence of local protectionism may make the local do not use wind power, photovoltaic, hydropower for various reasons. Mechanism problems can be solved in the context of the central government’s vigorous promotion of “carbon neutrality”, but technical problems are not easy to solve.
Therefore, solar energy and wind energy need to be vigorously developed, but at present, the cost of electricity storage is still high, and it is still impossible to completely replace fossil energy generation in the foreseeable future.
The second misunderstanding is that people think that there is a magic large-scale electricity storage technology, that if the energy storage technology improves, wind and solar energy can completely replace thermal power.
This assumption is too big, because since the invention of lead-acid batteries for more than 100 years, human beings have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in research and development funds to study energy storage, which can increase from 90 kWh/m3 of lead-acid batteries to today’s Tesla Pulling the 260 kWh/m3, the energy density of the battery has not been fundamentally changed in a revolutionary way. You know, gasoline is 8600 kWh/m3. At the same time, by far the cheapest large-scale GW (gigawatt installed capacity) level of electricity storage is the pumped hydro storage technology that was invented more than 100 years ago.
Breakthroughs in science and technology are not impossible, but only when they are discovered can they be discovered. Today’s discoveries cannot be predicted tomorrow. As an example I often give, the gun was not invented nearly a thousand years after the invention of gunpowder. The mechanics of guns are actually very simple, but if you say that after the invention of gunpowder, you can predict that guns will definitely be invented, then you are wrong. This reminds us that, in formulating any strategy, we must never assume that something can be done in this area of the future. Our strategy must be based on existing, proven and realistic technology routes.
The progress of different industries is different. The computer industry has Moore’s Law, which has indeed developed rapidly over the years, but the energy industry has not yet found a law similar to Moore’s Law. “Carbon neutrality” must choose a realistic and feasible route to advance.
There is a joke that Bill Gates told the president of Boeing that if the technological progress of the aircraft industry was as fast as that of computers, everyone could now drive an airplane instead of driving. The president of Boeing said, if my technology was like yours, no one in this world would dare to fly, because computers would crash at every turn in those days. Therefore, don’t think that a certain industry is developing rapidly, and other industries are the same. The energy industry is an industry that is constantly throwing money at slow technological progress. There will definitely be new inventions in energy storage technology in the future. We encourage the innovation and development of energy storage technology, but we must be cautious when formulating strategic goals, and don’t assume that this thing exists before it is invented.

The third misunderstanding, some people think that we can convert carbon dioxide into various chemicals, such as plastic wrap, cosmetics and so on. These can be converted and profitable, and can be done, but these cannot solve the problem of carbon dioxide. According to a rough estimate, a family of three emits an average of 22 tons of carbon a year, but a family can’t consume more than 20 tons of carbon a year.
On the other hand, only about 13% of the world’s oil produces all our petrochemicals, and about 87% of the remaining oil is burned. If the world’s chemicals are made with carbon dioxide, it will only solve 13% of the carbon neutrality problem. So, making chemicals from carbon dioxide on a scale does not have carbon reduction value. The contribution of carbon dioxide to other chemicals in carbon reduction is rather limited.

The fourth misunderstanding is that carbon dioxide can be captured and utilized in large quantities.
Using CCUS technology, the carbon dioxide emitted in the production process is captured and purified, and then put into the new production process for recycling or storage. In theory, large-scale capture of carbon dioxide can be achieved. Now everyone says that the carbon dioxide is separated in the power plant, and after the separation is completed, it can be used for oil displacement and burial and other functions. So let’s see, in the next ten years, China’s entire consumption of carbon dioxide flooding oil will be about 6 million tons, and our annual emissions will be 10.3 billion tons. Moreover, in this stage of oil displacement, part of the carbon dioxide enters the ground, and another part will come out with the oil. It is not a complete burial.
Putting carbon into the ground and burying it, I used to do this at GE before I returned to China. The coal, water and oxygen are converted into hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The hydrogen is burned to generate electricity to generate water vapor, and the carbon dioxide is hit underground. We did a demonstration project, which cost 2.8 billion US dollars before and after, and involved hundreds of doctors. It took 7 years. This demonstration has environmental significance, and the factory has been running in the United States so far, but it is not economical. After we completed this project, we found that it was the most complex set of industrial systems since GE was founded. Regardless of what GE can produce, including aircraft engines, medical equipment, nuclear magnetic resonance, CT, etc., including the equipment of the Three Gorges Water Conservancy Project and the locomotive of the Qinghai-Tibet Line, etc., but the most complex system of GE since its establishment is what we did at that time. “Zero-pollution thermal power plant”, but this cost is too high.
Carbon neutrality is not only a technical issue, but also a comprehensive issue of balanced economic and social development. Now the carbon dioxide is separated in the power plant. After the separation, it can be used for oil displacement and burial. It can be changed in places where oil displacement can be carried out. There is also a little economic benefit. Similar carbon dioxide oil displacement projects already exist in Xinjiang and other places in my country. . The cost of this piece is the cost of separating the carbon dioxide. We have calculated that the cost is assumed to be $30 per ton, of which $20 is to separate the carbon dioxide from the entire exhaust gas into pure carbon dioxide, $5 is for transportation, and the other $5 The dollar is squeezing it underground. Separation is the core, and the cost is also the largest. Under the current technical means, the cost of processing by CCUS is very high, and the effect is also limited. Of course, this may also be a guaranteed technology to achieve carbon neutrality.

The fifth myth is that carbon neutrality can be achieved by significantly reducing carbon emissions from industrial processes and product use by improving energy efficiency.
Energy efficiency always needs to be improved, and improving energy efficiency is also very good, and it is also the lowest cost carbon reduction route in the world. But I often ask a question, has our country’s energy efficiency improved or decreased in the two decades since we joined the WTO? We have improved a lot in energy efficiency, but is the total amount of carbon emissions increasing or decreasing? increased more. I remember that China’s oil consumption in 2000 was about 200 million tons, in 2010 it was about 400 million tons, and last year it was 750 million tons.
Changes in the entire society can be seen from changes in energy data. Before we joined the WTO, China’s coal output was about 1.2 billion tons, with very little self-produced and self-sold. In just 12 years in 2012, it has soared from 1.2 billion tons to 3.6 billion tons. The consumption of coal represents the consumption of electricity, and the consumption of electricity represents the degree of industrialization. Improving energy efficiency is an important means of reducing carbon emissions, but as long as fossil energy is still used, the contribution of improving energy efficiency to carbon neutrality is very limited. Improving energy efficiency is indeed the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions, and it should be done first. But there is a practical consideration that carbon neutrality cannot be achieved by energy efficiency improvements alone.

The sixth myth is that electric vehicles can reduce carbon emissions. Why do we want to develop electric vehicles? Very simple, mainly because China’s oil is not enough, 73% of our oil is imported

There is not enough oil, and it is beneficial to develop electric vehicles by relying on our excess power generation capacity. Electric vehicles can reduce local pollution. For example, a lot of electricity in the eastern region is generated in western Xinjiang and other places, and pollution is emitted in western Xinjiang and other places, not in the eastern region. However, in the analysis of carbon emissions in the whole life cycle, there is no impact on global climate change.

Why can’t electric vehicles completely solve the problem of carbon neutrality? Only after China’s energy structure has been completely changed can electric vehicles be considered clean energy, and it is possible to achieve carbon neutrality. If the energy structure does not change, and 67% of the grid is still coal-fired, the blind expansion of electric vehicles is increasing carbon emissions, not reducing them. Electric vehicles can only be considered clean energy if the energy mix and the grid are mostly made up of renewable energy sources.